Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta Horizon OS

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 813 posts

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#591

Post by jessriedel »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #542

As usual I get quite hopeful when I hear about a new operating system. We so absolutely need paths to move away from what we have today. I didn't even know what "mixed reality operating system" was so that made me hopeful. May include some nifty quantum processing. Alas, it is just stuff built on top of Android, which is built on top of the Linux kernel. Perhaps "Meta Horizon SDK for Android" would be a better label?…

“Operating system” is being used to refer to the UI for running and managing apps (not the original under-the-hood sense of the word for how app share resources, manage security, etc.). For better or worse, that is how consumers understand it.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#592

Post by wvenable »

LordShredda wrote: post #471
wvenable wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where VR shines, in my opinion, is in fitness. Where the goal is ultimately to move around in a gamified way. That's effectively how I use my Quest 2 and I'm not alone. Recently I've been trying to increase my table tennis skills.

But why does it need a heavy screen attached to your head? Just get some shorts and go outside, and if you can afford a quest 2 then surely you can afford a tennis table

It's not that heavy. I don't have the room for a tennis table nor am I close enough to my friends to play it for 30 minutes every night like I do in VR.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#593

Post by jayd16 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #446
modeless wrote: post #164

> And we encourage the Google Play 2D app store to come to Meta Horizon OS, where it can operate with the same economic model it does on other platforms. It sounds like they are specifically not open to third party app stores selling native AR/VR ("3D") apps. I can see why Google might not want to participate if they're not allowed to compete. This feels like a response to complaints that Meta is hypocritical when co…

This seems like trying to come up with an answer to Apple Vision's ability to run iOS apps. If you can install apps from Google Play then you could, if you wanted to, check your email from inside your headset. I'm not sure many people would want to do that, but if Apple thinks it's a good idea, blah blah blah.

Its not a killer feature, but having to take off the headset to read mail or slack or whatever is a real drag.

It will quickly become table stakes.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#594

Post by kernal »

flohofwoe wrote: post #64
reactordev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flavor of android

Ooof that's a bummer, I hope that doesn't translate to the typical "Android developer experience".

Would you rather have the typical "iOS developer experience" and XCode? Or are you under the impression that Android development hasn't progressed? Additionally, there is also Flutter which is starting to account for a good percentage of new apps.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#595

Post by jayd16 »

int_19h wrote: post #404
999900000999 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand, but it seems trivial to add HDMI input here. Technically you can just remote desktop into a computer from your VR headset, but that won't work in every scenario.

For Quest 3 specifically, "remote desktop into a computer" actually works surprisingly well if you 1) avoid the stock Meta software and use Steam Link instead, and 2) use wired connection to maximize bandwidth and minimize latency. The second part needs some explaining. One undocumented feature of Quest 3 is that it supports (some) USB-C Ethernet adapters. There isn't really any UI for it that I know of; things just…

Even the stock one is pretty good these days.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#599

Post by zztop44 »

mdasen wrote: post #405
distortedsignal wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low end of the market is taken - but (from an outsider perspective) the high end appears free. The people who want to buy a Honda aren't the same people who want to buy an Acura, even though it's (essentially) the same parts. Let's say that, tomorrow, Gucci or Dolce and Gabanna (or however you spell that) want to make a VR headset (why? who knows?). They don't have the tech acumen to compete with Facebook on expe…

I feel like this is a bit off. There have been things like Porsche phones, but those are so niche that I don't think they're really worth considering. They happened, but they haven't been a long-standing product. They were a cash grab where they licensed a brand. Now, Hondas and Acuras are different products. You can say "oh, they're essentially the same" and if you truly believe that, I'll sell you a Core i3 process…

I don’t disagree with your core point, but branding is about a lot more than a logo. I think iPhones do sell to rich people because of branding, because iPhone’s brand basically is “the best possible phone you can get, plus it integrates seamlessly with your other Apple devices”. And Samsung flagships’ brand is “the best Android phone”.

Porsche, or whatever, have a great and meaningful brand when it comes to cars, but that doesn’t translate to smartphones. So when you see a phone with the Porsche logo the brand isn’t really gonna do much for you.

Post reply on HN